3 ms·
We need to stop having these discussions here. HN users are broadly unequipped to deal with the subject of the "blackness" of Ancient Egyptians. Immediately cit
by bsanr2 6y ago
We need to stop having these discussions here. HN users are broadly unequipped to deal with the subject of the "blackness" of Ancient Egyptians. Immediately citing limited genetic studies (as conveyed by a popular newspaper) rather than attempting to understand and sustain reasoned discourse on the sociopolitical dynamics of race is a dead giveaway.
Suffice it to say, the genetic evidence shows that Egyptians (and their southern neighbors) are an indigenous African population, with the current residents of the region generally descendents of the people who were there 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 thousand years ago. The question of their blackness is a political one - as blackness itself is a social construct of the modern age, predicated on appearance and political necessity rather than strict ancestry, and generally inapplicable to ancient populations. In this case, the continuous and vehement insistence that Egyptians were not "black", over a century and a half of Western scholarship and backed by varying rationales as the years proceeded, is useful as a study in the politics of race and perceived technical and societal capability.
No one gets so up in arms about whether or not the Ancient Greeks were "white" (Super-Alpine white).
Edit: I suppose I asked for it, considering my audience. Thank you for living up to my worst expectations. (Seriously, delete the post.)
- Grakel 6y agoAh, the academy's amazing tap dance to obscure simple but inconvenient facts. Love it.
- bsanr2 6y agoI feel like I'm being concise. Blackness is a designation of political expediency. It's not a genetic distinction. HN commenters routinely confuse this point. Ergo, this is a poor topic for us to discuss. You seem to be hinting at something scandalous; please do be upfront.
- saagarjha 6y agoHave you considered that showing up to a thread and saying everyone else is too stupid to understand whatever you’re trying to share, then being surprised that your comment goes over poorly, seems like the real manifestation of ignorance? In any case, don’t do this here. If you have something to say, be straightforward about it and don’t insult your readers.
- bsanr2 6y agoI fail to see what's confusing, and the tone is appropriate, considering the parent.
- deeeeplearning 6y agoSomeone got GPT3 to output grievance studies parlance I see. That is to say that this post is identical to the nonsensical gibberish that machines currently output.
- monkeynotes 6y agoI think you are getting downvoted because a) you are asking to shut down a subject that is interesting to people. Talking about stuff is how people get educated. If you have an opinion or something to add, state it. Shutting down a topic because you judge the audience is too narrow to understand it makes... b) you come across as a snotty elitist who has an axe to grind. I don't see how understanding how ancient people looked is a political study. Yes, race is highly political, but it can be a political and historical topic. Individuals can be interested in what humans used to look like (and this is not limited to blackness) without being interested in the politics. No one is up in arms. People are just interested. The Ancient Greeks are decidedly caucasian, there is not much discussion around that because most scholars agree. We make models of what we think prehistoric humans and sapiens looked like and there is much interest in that without it being political. People just like knowing stuff about the past, about their ancestors. Just because some assholes politicize this sort of thing, just because some teachers push their politically charged racial bias on others does not mean that the whole topic is exclusively socio-political. Citing genetic studies is completely valid. Real science is non-political so I'd say that's a totally rational way to approach the question of what did the people of one of the most sophisticated ancient civilizations look like.
- bsanr2 6y agoThank you for taking the time to give your analysis. I disagree with much of it. I ask you to bear with me as I explain myself. The subject of race is inherently political, and, specifically with regards to Egyptians, mired in decades of bad faith. Much of early Egyptology was dedicated to "proving" that Ancient Egyptians weren't "black." This is, of course, impossible; "blackness" is not a objectively-defined designation. It's a contextually-driven decision by observers and the self. So, again, the most interesting question becomes not of whether or not Egyptians were black - by the modern definition of blackness (itself predicated in part on notions of separating African populations), they weren't, nor where they white, or Middle Eastern, or Levantine. The most interesting question is why the assertion that they weren't black is so vociferous. That's the character of the parent and several of its replies, not clear-eyed curiosity. They represent a conclusion, not an investigation. It's in this light - in observing this echo chamber - that I felt the need to protest, and I feel justified in doing so. Humor me and assume, for a moment, that "Egyptians were not black," being rooted in a pre-geneology, anthropology-nascent scientific understanding, is itself a political assertion. What does the rest of this discussion look like, then? How, in your default perspective, is it not political? Because of the genetic studies cited? What do those studies actually say, and what about the model you've built around them is actually an intellectual leap? That's the conversation I want to have. Not, "Oh boy ain't my Negro Studies professor dumb?".